Project 2025 Status
Chapter Author
an energy and regulatory attorney with a major law firm; formerly a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
McNamee’s review of the DOE articulates well-rehearsed conservative arguments about the importance of the free market. He advocates eliminating all government funding for renewable energy sources and control of carbon emissions.
The plan would change regulations and licensing processes, in order to move DOE responsibility for innovation in renewable energy sources to the private sector. It would use legislation where necessary to reshape the DOE, rewrite its mission, and defund any aspects of it that do not comply with conservative ideology.
The conservative mission for the Department of Energy (DOE) is to prioritize dominance in energy and science, which will “ensure that Americans have abundant, affordable, and reliable energy; create good-paying jobs; support domestic manufacturing and technology leadership; and strengthen national security.”
McNamee argues that the US is in an energy crisis that has been created by ideologically driven “extreme ‘green’ policies” that raise the cost of energy for Americans, curtail business development, and make the US dependent on countries such as China. He notes that there have been potentially devastating cyberattacks on the US energy infrastructure and electric grid by Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea, and focuses on China as the main threat to energy security, through espionage.
The chapter presents a plan to move away from a focus on climate change and renewable energy sources and back toward what he calls “reliable” fossil fuels. In this scenario, all individuals should be able to choose whatever source of energy they prefer while the government encourages private-sector development of all energy sources, including nuclear.
McNamee proposes renaming and reorienting the DOE as the Department of Energy Security and Advanced Science (DESAS).
Its new focus should be:
The departmental reorganization would thus focus on energy security; eliminate the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations and return this work to the private sector; put an end to DOE interference in export of natural gas due to climate-change concerns; insist that FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) be an economic regulator and not a climate regulator; and streamline the bureaucracy to allow faster development of new nuclear reactors and weapons.
At the same time, the DOE should halt all “politicized social agendas,” such as Energy Justice and DEI.
The new department, DESAS, would coordinate with the National Security Council, the departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Commerce along with the intelligence community.
The refocusing of the DOE as DESAS would include a review of all federal science agencies; they should be prioritized according to how they support energy security and national security.
Remediation of nuclear waste sites should now include more private sector responsibility for waste disposal, as a relief to taxpayers, and develop more nuclear storage sites. In terms of military capacity, the development of new nuclear warheads and naval reactors would be paralleled with putting an end to nonproliferation agreements (such as the one with Iran).
This reorganization would require specific legislative changes and executive orders. It would also require the department to step back from private sector initiatives and reduce regulatory obstacles.
The chapter lists all the various Offices that comprise the DOE, explaining their functions and listing desired reforms; McNamee argues that some of these Offices should be eliminated or defunded. Overall, the rationale for the reorganization of the DOE focuses on the following assumptions:
Finally, McNamee suggests that the Office of Policy develop a National Energy Security Strategy.